Big Mac Takes on the Veggie Burghers

John Sweeny

The Observer, July 3, 1994

McM'LUD beamed vaguely in the direction of McM'learned McFriend -
but he wasn't there. Instead, an owlish unshaven McKropotkin and a
sister anarchist stared back: the McLibel Two.

The case is one of the most bizarre libel trials in modern times. At
stake is the good name of the hamburger chain McDonald's, which is
suing two unemployed vegetarians for allegedly publishing a 'factsheet'
which styled the world's largest junk food firm as 'McDollars,
McGreedy, McCancer, McMurder'.

Anarchists being what they are, they cannot afford libel lawyers.
The British libel law being what it is, there is no legal aid for the
defendants.

Ergo, Mr Justice Bell - a younger version of Wilfred Hyde White,
minus panama - had last week to cope with the agony of untrained
advocates defending themselves. To rub it in, defendant Dave Morris
appeared in Court 35 without a jacket and tie. Co-defendant Helen
Steel wore a purple T-shirt. There could not have been any more
monstrous a subversion of juridical etiquette had two odd-toed
ungulates addressed the court.

McDonald's, on the other hand, has Richard Rampton: an urbane silk
who, I'll wager, costs more per diem than six chicken McNuggets and
regular fries. However, with a global turnover of $ 24 billion,
McDonald's could afford several million refreshers before having to
count the change.

The trial is a battle between the largest maker of hamburgers and
two vegans on the dole. If that sounds like bullying, then, as
M'learned friends say, so be it.

The action is played out against a three-way culture clash. The
veggies come from north London and deploy a deep-rooted, earnest and
entirely humourless dislike of Big Mac. The men from Big Mac come from
Middle America and have a deep-rooted, earnest and entirely humourless
attitude towards criticism. The lawyers are upper-class Home Counties
types. Each clique has its own buzz-word. The veggies revere
'animals'; the men from Big Mac 'customers' and the lawyers
'bundles'.

Mr Rampton is a master of orotund circumlocution. For example: on
Friday he examined Robert McKinley Beavers Jr, a corporate
vice-president of McDonald's. Rampton: 'I don't wish in any way to
sound offensive but not all your ancestors were Caucasian . . . ?' What
M'learned friend wanted to say was: 'You're black, aren't you?' Mr
Beavers Jr's blackness was adduced because it was evidence that
McDonald's is a good thing and not, as the defendants suggest, a bad
thing. McDonald's knows it won't get any serious money out of the
McLibel Two. It knows it won't even get its costs, Mr Rampton told the
judge. But it will a get a clean bill of health from a British court -
or that appears to be the hope. That strategy started to be derailed
from the word go.

The first witness in the stand was Paul Preston, president of
McDonald's UK. 'I'm Big Mac, if you will,' he offered. A beefy
mid-westerner, he exuded numbed incomprehension at the defendants'
charges. Mr Rampton twitted Mr Preston with their claims: 'Do
McDonald's destroy rainforests?' 'We do not.' 'Are his burgers
unhealthy?' 'I've heard of the term "craving" but never of anyone being
addicted to Big Macs.' Constipation . . . ? 'We're continually
concerned with our menu.'

The leaflet uses the word 'poisonous'. 'Leaving aside one incident
in Preston in 1991 . . .' said Mr Rampton. Aha! And what was that
incident? A case of food poisoning, admitted by McDonald's, which no
one would have been reminded of had not the corporate giant brought its
case.

Mr Rampton returned to his irony, as light in touch as an electric
cattle prod: 'In what way is McDonald's responsible for torture and
murder?' It was not. 'Does it matter to you that rainforests will be
around when your children are grown up?' 'Of course. And maybe, some
day, hopefully I will have grandchildren . . .' A muffled simper passed
round the courtroom.

Rampton turned to the subject of trash which, thanks to American
cultural imperialism, we all know means rubbish. Did McDonald's allow
it near its restaurants, asked Mr Rampton. Mr Preston went into a long
threnody for Ray Kroc, founder of the chain, who used to pick up litter
himself.

The one thing that should be in Court 35 - a jury - is missing. The
burger lawyers managed to persuade Judge Bell that the issues were too
complex for a jury to take in. The judge will decide. That a jury is
incapable of determining an action that turns on the right to free
speech of British citizens - however boring or silly, however bunged up
with lentils -seems to be a new gap in our democratic defences.